SOPA - Internet as we know it about to be gone?

[mrcash2009 0]

Pelham = Team batting gatekeeper of the "now"

Others = Concerns for future use seeing the caveats within the Q&A and legislation

Simply if after everything that can be read on the matter, knowing all the patently obvious justifications for it as Pelham hits home continually as if we would not know this and cant read and think all of it is hogwash I dont. And after knowing all of the justifications now, and knowing the caveats and areas within it ... does it have potential to effect most net users from its insertion and then onwards? And if you come to a conclusion of "100 percent firmly no" then I worry about those putting it through. Or I would say I would be very interested in their invested interests and gains from it along side its 'intitial usage'.

Because ...

The government may not use the cyber threat information for other purposes unless a significant cybersecurity or national security purpose exists.

And as even Pelham has stated most levels of this would be in 'national security' and so the cyber threat information then can be used for "other purposes" of which none of this is very well explained (but we know based onthe Q&A what its in reference too), unless you work for them you wont know, and still does not show exactly what data passed within a cyber threat case will have a line drawn against it, and most definitely if its labelled national security. So from that, if you think that in the future and any hack event that might occur will somehow still be shielding general net users then, well, im laughing.

That Q&A was all in reference to peoples concerns and yet within it you can clearly see how it leads in to a big loop turning into the same outcome.

No one knows what event(s) it will be, how large spread, how much data needs to be shared based on it, how frequent, what level it will come down too (ISP and so on), how much later on it will go from large hacking to small hacking events with the interpretation of it by those who may move on and new agency members take over, and adjustments (look at other legislation for terror and see how mass terror ends up being people bins, taking pictures, . yada yada yada) you dont know these factors, but with this customisable framework with "other purposes" you have the seed.

The only real reason it stands is becuase of "its just for the bad guys" and yes, that is initially what its for *please refer to all Pelhams posts*, and that's the same for most legislation since 2001 that's "customisable".

So, where within this is there a 'paranoid fantasy' (that old chestnut)? You crack me up, seems no one cares for the future, but if having concerns for this is paranoia best check the same government(s) who forecast for potential events then, as I mentioned see 2012 Olympics from a decent slab of it heres a great example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2140173/Poison-drones-new-Olympic-threat-warns-Colonel-charge-keeping-London-calm.html

Poison drones carrying biological weapon are new Olympic threat, warns Colonel in charge of keeping London calm

Wonder if he's a CISPA fan? :)

Edited May 6, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

I would stop altering my original sentences like adding "local" to police. I said police and I meant FBI.

I would research the different areas of responsibility between the FBI, CIA, DHS, NSA and others before making such suggestions. So you want the FBI to handle this not the government? So the FBI isn't the government, um so can you tell me who is then and why the other 3 shouldn't cover their respective areas of responsibility for this?

---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 PM ----------

And as even Pelham has stated most levels of this would be in 'national security' and so the cyber threat information then can be used for "other purposes" of which none of this is very well explained (but we know based onthe Q&A what its in reference too), unless you work for them you wont know, and still does not show exactly what data passed within a cyber threat case will have a line drawn against it, and most definitely if its labelled national security.

Yes CISPA is mostly focused on National Security. How many people are national security threats or work as hackers for china? Very, very few so how will this affect everyone? MrCash = hooked on conspiracy theories. Edited May 7, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Yes CISPA is mostly focused on National Security. How many people are national security threats or work as hackers for china? Very, very few so how will this affect everyone? MrCash = hooked on conspiracy theories.

Because when the questions are posed about how this may "effect people" and monitoring the Q&A's show that the data will be used further ONLY under situations of national security via the government, so if its all based under that umbrella, then where is it confirming this will "not ever happen"? .... its open and can be modified, which you cannot even conceive and only file under responses such as UFO idiots, conspiracy theorist, tin foil hat and the rather dated cliché list goes on, its so 2001 darling.

Im sorry its such a stretch that you can only see paranoid fantasy outside the 'customisable' framework or CISPA 0.9b, lets check out later release revisions and see. You only want to see the short term solutions it may bring as it stands now, some of us look at a larger picture, seems conspiracy theory is actually decoded here as "forward looking concern disease".

You seem to forget a government shouting "national security" via the media and agencies is much like your police analogy but in this case the police shouting "your not complying" when no one other than them gets to see if that was truly the case, point being, 'national security' is another blanket trigger word that can be adapted to many levels of some sort of hack, and can be abused in order to receive data through that process.

If a company offers up data and that authority asks for more under national security, even though the company may actually only see things as a low level hack (not big china bad boys and mass credit scammers and mass terror hack monsters) and they ask for more data (mr normal is within this data) under this "tag" (for example its put to a company its 'related to another ongoing case') they aren't going to ignore this and not hand it over (where voluntary becomes obliges becomes required). So, you can have situations under this where data can be passed through and monitored which on the face of it is CISPA protocol.

Theres this really funny thing thats happened in history and its called uses of legislation not for what was actually intended over time, there are plenty of cases and examples in recent history, you cannot guarantee anyone 100 precent this cant be used in this way later, or ever see examples of it in the future, unless you have special powers of course.

Edited May 6, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Good grief, it reads like a dystopian fiction novel. Can I ask just how likely this dark future is? Do you realise that in order for that to happen they would have to go back to Congress to amend this act, re-write half of it and then probably rewrite the constitution as well? That would mean consultation, amendments, negotiations, lobbying, debating back and forth, voting etc taking 6 months to a year. Legislation can't change by 'magic', it doesn't happen that way, if it did we wouldn't be having this debate - CISPA would be in law already. I have asked you several times if you know how democracy works and the above shows that you don't have the faintest idea. Please look it up and get real.

That is why it's easy to dismiss this as tinfoil hattishness, you can't demonstrate a likely scenario of how you get from A-B with this dystopian theory. How would an amendment or new law with the wide ranging powers you describe get through Congress if this rather timid bill suffers so many obstacles?

Edited May 7, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Pelham, its simple can you categorically say beyond a shadow of a doubt 100 percent the way this customisable legislation is based on the point ref national security & going further as an umbrella shown here that nothing of the sort will ever take place in the future based on just the past 11 years of legislation mirroring in the real world and how that's shown to be extended out of its initial use?

How would an amendment or new law with the wide ranging powers you describe get through Congress if this rather timid bill suffers so many obstacles?

You dont need wide ranging powers, you have CISPA's national security trigger framework ..

>>>>

The government may not use the cyber threat information for other purposes unless a significant cybersecurity or >> **"national security purpose"** << exists.

Its already in the initial introduction, I have described a pretty straight forward low key scenario of a data request from a company based on "national security" flag up, and you can only decode it as a dystopian nightmare fiction novel content? You clearly have been watching too much TV and films & the books are getting to you. How is this fictional when there are examples in other legislation "offline" that show what I was refering too.

You seem to think I must beleive its all evil with dark lords waiting to set the trap, I hope it is not abused obviously & I can see its obvious initial usage *please refer to Pelhams posts*, but, looking at the past 11 years, I have this niggling feeling over time and a few national security based online "events", it will be a different picture / playing field.

I have asked you several times if you know how democracy works and the above shows that you don't have the faintest idea. Please look it up and get real.

And you completely ignore my responces in reference (to sum it up) "tag it with terror" and it gets fast tracked, one size fits all democratic process is a fantasy in your world. So instead of suggesting I get real, I would say to you why not take it into consideration, we shall see as things progress, fiction novel not included.

Edited May 7, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

It's quite simple, to work out if you are a national security risk - you look up the definition of national security:

national security — A collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations of the United States. Specifically, the condition provided by: a. a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations; b. a favorable foreign relations position; or c. a defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from within or without, overt or covert.

In 2010, Barack Obama included an all-encompassing world-view in his definition of America's national security interests as:

• The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;

• A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity;

• Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and

• An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

So based on that MrCash I wouldn't worry, you are more likely to be a danger to yourself than a "significant risk" to US national security and the intelligence services will not give you a second thought. The dystopian ramblings are entertaining though, maybe you could write a book. The phrase you have artfully and colourfully quoted above is quite clear, only the paranoid would read more into it.

Edited May 7, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

In 2010, Barack Obama included an all-encompassing world-view in his definition of America's national security interests as:

An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

Oh yes indeed, Obama certainly loves his "one world" push, you do realise all you post promotes exactly what people are concerned about, funny really.

you are more likely to be a danger to yourself than a "significant risk" to US national security and the intelligence services will not give you a second thought.

I think I post in general about it, and you yet again simplify it when its about data getting sucked into a scenario I stated, not some high paid agent in an inteligent service eating crisps bored "looking at an individual" form the outset (now who sounds like a novel or crap film plot), you tried this already it doesn't work.

So national security is in fact universal & global, which still shows how that Q&A statement to quell peoples concerns doesn't stack up fully. Which lead onto extradition we see from people in the UK for hacking, even though they should be tried at home, yes this global universal all encompassing view shows itself clear, thanks for posting that.

only the paranoid would read more into it

Only the black & white compartmentalised gatekeeper would simply ignore it outright, and you still didn't answer my question.

Wait until you see what agencies do with this legislation like the past, you might want to check them out for "reading into" something first of all, interpretation is a great theme these days. It will be very interesting to see how far fetched things really are once reports come forward later if this goes through, its not about how ludicrous my posts might be (in your view), or how perfect yours are with facts, its actually about something that "can be" or "could be" abused, more important than anything else. Mix that with history, the levels of which will use such legislation, and its not fantasy to be concerned.

Edited May 7, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

The international bit was refering to US allies as is clearly stated in the post. There are international agreements such as NATO and ANZUS which form part of of the US National Security interests, that is what it refers to. Nice jump to the wrong conclusion again lol.

[mrcash2009 0]

I know, and it still results in the same (global) and still doesn't answer the question I had, but then that's a US subject topic I suppose. And just to get it back to the point, it was justified no data would be used in any other way outside the cyber threat (CISPA's point & which under questions of if it could be used further it shows that it "can be") and that's "if" its under national security with some "significance", which is a crap defence becuase you have shown all of it mainly is, that's my point all along in terms of using national security and data getting through and viewed under the protocol of CISPA, meaning, it will not protect such data all things considered (no matter what they use it for later, theory or not).

And, to stick to a cycle ... its customisable and can be modified, which no matter if it ever does get abused, does in fact open up a caveat to be abused, political parties change, events happen, and therefore its worrying in my view to not have concern, and is nothing to do with conspiracy, yet future unknowns and planning for future events governments pay and project all day long, but thats somehow ok as long as its "the bad men" on another part of the globe.

Theres a great buzzword right now due to Murdoc case called "Willful blindness", something that will be seen allot more of as things progress, to think this will not be the case elsewhere, and nothing will get modified or abused in the future, just take a trip through the past (past & history tell all).

Edited May 8, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Willful Blindness can work both ways, I say you are willfully blind to the issue (or maybe just have difficulty comprehending the language). You still have not read the Q&A properly have you? http://intelligence.house.gov/qa-about-rogers-ruppersberger-cybersecurity-bill

The government may not search the cyber threat information for non-cybersecurity or national security information. (Amendment at markup)

Taking the phrase that appears beneath it (see colourful text in #531) and quoting it in isolation without reference to the other strict limitations is misleading.

The government may not use the cyber threat information for other purposes unless a significant cybersecurity or national security purpose exists. (Amendment at markup)

The other limitations in the bill put great restrictions on exactly what the Cyber Threat information will be. So your irrational fear that the national security protocols will be redrafted to allow general spying can't happen without a Congressional amendment as I said in post #530. There is no way this law can be used as a general spying tool unless it goes back to congress for debate, lobbying and an amendment. You have to take the text of the bill as a whole as it's a series of legal logic gates that limit what can be done with it.

Thats what I find disturbing about the civil rights industry, surely they employ people with the brains to understand this obvious fact? Surely they wouldn't be deliberately misleading or tell blatant lies?

Edited May 8, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

There is no way this law can be used as a general spying tool unless it goes back to congress for debate, lobbying and an amendment.

As I told you Pelham a future online "event" under the fast-track rule of "Terror" that media align with "hacker" can happen, so as much as you cant believe anything due to process, you have seen what has been passed fairly fast in the past due to this subject, and nothing is any less online, esp when you can see how its being treated through the media. I will hold you to "no way" seeing as your work in these circles and will be in the dept on cases.

Thats what I find disturbing about the civil rights industry

You find 'civil rights' industry dusturbing? What planet are you truly on?

Surely they wouldn't be deliberately misleading or tell blatant lies?

Hahahaha, im sorry I cant help myself here, have you ever checked history of government & agencies and the last 11 years and more? hahahah.

More comedy for the future.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18003315

Queen's Speech: Internet monitoring plan to have 'strict safeguards'

Plans to make it easier for the police and intelligence agencies to monitor e-mails, phone calls and internet use have been unveiled, but with promises of "strict safeguards".

The Draft Communications Bill would update existing procedures for allowing access to "vital" information. This includes phone numbers and e-mail addresses, but not the content of conversations.

Certainly is "vital" but no conversations .. PHEW! :j:

This is the real world Pelham, one you cant comprehend, inch away further inwards tagging "safeguard" to it, but ever closer ... no CISPA required and in your own country much closer to home & with elements of what people did not like about CISPA. Happy "nothing to hide nothing to worry about" religious mantra for the webz.

Edited May 9, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

As I told you Pelham a future online "event" under the fast-track rule of "Terror" that media align with "hacker" can happen, so as much as you cant believe anything due to process, you have seen what has been passed fairly fast in the past due to this subject, and nothing is any less online, esp when you can see how its being treated through the media. I will hold you to "no way" seeing as your work in these circles and will be in the dept on cases.

So you admit what you said about CISPA is completely wrong and that new legislation would have to be passed for your dystopian fantasy to come true? You and various civil rights organisations are not telling the truth about this, can I ask why? I don't see why you and they have to lie about it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18003315

Queen's Speech: Internet monitoring plan to have 'strict safeguards'

Certainly is "vital" but no conversations .. PHEW! :j:

This is the real world Pelham, one you cant comprehend, inch away further inwards tagging "safeguard" to it, but ever closer ... no CISPA required and in your own country much closer to home & with elements of what people did not like about CISPA. Happy "nothing to hide nothing to worry about" religious mantra for the webz.

Would you like to move on to a different subject now you have painted yourself into a corner over CISPA, I don't mind at all?

[mrcash2009 0]

So you admit what you said about CISPA is completely wrong and that new legislation would have to be passed for your dystopian fantasy to come true?

No!? Where did I admit those words "LOL"!? I used that framework of yours to explain a reason how your view on a slow process may not be the case under cetain "cirumstances" along side what I already said, nice try, a bit childish, but nice try.

You and various civil rights organisations are not telling the truth about this, can I ask why? I don't see why you and they have to lie about it?

This is now pathetic, truly pathetic (looking at the world stage and not telling the truth), but keep posting it all speaks for itself in the end mr gatekeeper ;)

Would you like to move on to a different subject now you have painted yourself into a corner over CISPA, I don't mind at all?

And again, pathetic, I dont much give a stuff where you move too, this subject isn't yours alone as I mentioned before, and in comparison it shows where this is leading regardless. Although Im sure you have much more gatekeeper views on it with only one view and that this is somehow all absolutely fine for the public for now and the future on-line, so it will be ground-hog day in some respects. BTW I didnt see a "democratic" open vote for this either funny enough, you know, for those who are using the net and that would be the majority of millions in the UK.

Your last post was like something in a school break time, talk about reactionary, you really have convinced "yourself" haven't you, I sometimes wonder if we are having the same conversation. You clearly have no place to go on this but "defend defend defend" until one day you might actually be incorrect, god forbid that should be the case, and that's the key thing to all of this, its not about the subject which is important regardless of who's posting, but you wont ever be wrong .. time will show this. Post #538 has some telling signs, I call it projecting.

You do realise gatekeeping for a team when a team will show its true colours in time will pull the rug from under you harder.

Edited May 9, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Since I proved that CISPA could not evolve without Congressional amendment you seem to have suddenly dropped the argument that it could. In the 1st paragraph #537 you say that something else would have to be passed. So you therefore admit what I said in #530 about the need for congressional amendment was correct.

All you had to do to change my mind on CISPA was provide a logical argument and evidence for it. You failed to do so. You can't even provide any logical reasoning for what you say might happen in the future. So ROFL.

[mrcash2009 0]

Since I proved that CISPA could not evolve without Congressional amendment you seem to have suddenly dropped the argument that it could. In the 1st paragraph #537 you say that something else would have to be passed. So you therefore admit what I said in #530 about the need for congressional amendment was correct.

Go an "argue" in a dark room with yourself, everything I have stated is clear to read for anyone, your projecting again.

You can't even provide any logical reasoning for what you say might happen in the future.

The future will undoubtedly be the present, and is also history to take note from, seeing as we are all on-line for the future and hacking wont go away, then what more logical reasoning is needed, the legislation pathe's the way to be customised and under "terror" it can be processed faster (see Patriot act fast tracking and who actually read it before passing through the standard process), its only illogical to you.

All you had to do to change my mind on CISPA was provide a logical argument and evidence for it. You failed to do so.

And therein lies everything you are about, argumentative and not debating with it completely central to yourself, as if changing your mind is the sole existence of this thread / CISPA / the subject (all forms of this legislation type) and points raised, and why I post in response, and a sole justification on behalf of the populous, please get over yourself, I dont give a rats ass about changing your mind. I do however give a rats ass about balance in a debate and highlighting a subject when the forum title was specifically in regards to concerns. Yet another telling post my dear watson.

I dont see where in this threads entire subject or initial creation your name on the OFP and a direct set task to post to 'change your mind' as some kind of be all and end all conclusion to it. You dont win a prize or anything.

Edited May 9, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

So your argument now is not with CISPA it's with some undefined, undrafted , possible future legislation that may be passed under dubious circumstances. That event would not have anything to do with CISPA would it? So do you have anything else to add against CISPA or is that it?

(PS your link doesn't work)

[mrcash2009 0]

So your argument now is not with CISPA it's with some undefined, undrafted , possible future legislation that may be passed under dubious circumstances.

No, my "point ref you previous post" is in reference to all connected points clearly stated in my previous posts that you continue to slip and slide around every new post you make. Dubious circumstances can be addressed by looking a the past 11 years of legislation using terror/national security as ive said in those previous posts for anyone to read (my link simple listed all my posts here), not including yourself becuase this wont change your mind, although im not posting for that, never was.

That event would not have anything to do with CISPA would it? So do you have anything else to add against CISPA or is that it?

It would as CISPA along with all other on-line legislation isn't some compartmentalised unrelated paperwork, at the very tip you still have same agencies using such data throughout and legislation to hand, and esp coming together in this "global" Obama mantra outlook, with any kind of event online that would allow, all I have referenced with caveats to do so in my previous posts using such tag words and descriptions is one small example of just CISPA's aspects. The other post ref UK shows yet another outlook which in contrast to CISPA still shows the concerns people have in relation to online legislation. So, this thread was about such legislation, CISPA is also within this grouping of legislation with what it is based on.

You clearly have nothing to add defending CISPA and nothing is going to changed "your" mind of which this thread isnt about (you) or soley about (CISPA), so, is that it?

Edited May 9, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

So CISPA is ok but you don't want it in case something worse comes along in the future. As I proved legally on the previous page - CISPA would have to return to Congress for amendment before it could be used for widespread snooping. Yep I guess thats it lol.

(PS the link still isn't working)

Edited May 11, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

So CISPA is ok but you don't want it in case something worse comes along in the future.

No, CISPA has its angles which can be open to abuse so its not "ok" (that's you projecting again with your default position on the matter), and going by past legislation and actions/results shows its not a dream away from being so, what will come in the future makes this look like Disneyland if this and other legislation for on-line is just a basis for "customisation".

Yep I guess thats it lol.

Your interpretation and manipulation of what you think I mean will inevitably will be wrong, so please turn it into whatever fits your own mindset with guessing. The link is simply a search link to my posts in this thread, works fine and then fails once logged out, hey ho, thread has it all to read regardless, so, is that it?

Edited May 10, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Seeing as you can't articulate any problems with CISPA, yep I guess that's it. I don't have a mindset on this BTW, I can read and understand legal documents and have 15 years experience of interpreting and implementing new laws in the workplace and preparing reports on the impact of draft legislation on business. I am more than qualified to predict statutory outcomes.

I can see exactly what CISPA can and can't do and it's fairly obvious what the limitations are. Why certain journalists, bloggers and civil rights groups continue to mislead, exaggerate and quote out of context on the issue, without mentioning the external hacking it's designed to prevent, I'm not sure. I suppose there is money to be made out of controversy, it's the usual motive. Others simply repeat what they hear because they are incapable of independent analysis.

As it stands there is nothing wrong with this law, Congress will either see sense and pass it or Obama will veto it because he needs the votes from the left. Curiously he supports other bills with similar language that are going through Congress in parallel. They have less memorable names so aren't being reported as widely lol. No need for me to provide that info as I'm sure you already know about it.

Edited May 10, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Seeing as you can't articulate any problems with CISPA, yep I guess that's it. I don't have a mindset on this BTW, I can read and understand legal documents and have 15 years experience of interpreting and implementing new laws in the workplace and preparing reports on the impact of draft legislation on business. I am more than qualified to predict statutory outcomes.

As much as you cant comprehend comparisons to other legislation and outcomes from the past and the agencies that are involved and history plus changes and customisation with any future events. Im happy for your line of work, although its not involved with CISPA or online legislation or those dept's, no need to defend so much, especialy to a UFO nut conspiracy theorist (your references to me only), seems a waste of effort to justify yourself.

Why certain journalists, bloggers and civil rights groups continue to mislead, exaggerate and quote out of context on the issue, without mentioning the external hacking it's designed to prevent, I'm not sure.

Maybe they are aware of hacking but are looking more into the idea of centralised control as a center point for such drips of legislation and see a larger picture, not just a narrow field of "get the bad men" which is bloody abvious regardless. I think most of them leave it as people understand what the legilsation is set to "combat" Pelham, its not as if they can hide it ... "lol".

I suppose there is money to be made out of controversy, it's the usual motive. Others simply repeat what they hear because they are incapable of independent analysis.

Well not to burst your bubble but in the last 11 years (and more) you can adapt that to lots of things (bird flu, flu jabs (tamiflu), global warming & al gore dvd .. list goes on), and thats right back to government level than independent sources, so no ones exempt im afraid.

Congress will either see sense and pass it or Obama will veto it because he needs the votes from the left. Curiously he supports other bills with similar language that are going through Congress in parallel. They have less memorable names so aren't being reported as widely lol. No need for me to provide that info as I'm sure you already know about it.

Obama will run with the horses all day long he doesnt interest me at all. But then your CISPA position has been known from the outset so nothing new, we shall see how this unfolds for online Pelham, give it time.

EDIT:

Posting this for "reference of views of concern in relation to this threads topic only"

and in no way is this video posting directed toward Pelham

(just to make it abundantly clear for my reasons), take it as you find it and use your own sources from this overview video.

_B8BqzvrtPU

Edited May 10, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

Another RT vid with a "journalist" who hosts his own YouTube show? In reality he is the usual fringe dwelling oddball they love to interview. He states he isn't a conspiracy theorist and then goes on to suggest the USA is turning into a totalitarian state and that the FBI is trying to spy on millions of Americans without providing the slightest evidence for it. Perhaps he should look up the definition of totalitarianism and work out exactly who is closer, Russia or the USA.

Some notes on RT and their activities:

• The channel is owned and funded by the Russian government and was not created as a response to any existing media demand. The Russian government owns 60 percent of newspapers, and in whole or in part, all national television stations in the country.
  
• A former KGB officer, Konstantin Preobrazhensky described RT as "a part of the Russian industry of misinformation and manipulation" designed to mislead foreign audiences about Russian intentions. It is thought to be a project of Directorate 'A' of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service that specialises in manipulating world public opinion.
  
• Accuracy in Media criticized RT as a "propaganda network funded by the Moscow regime of Vladimir Putin"
  
• The Moscow Times stated that the TV network broadcasts "Kremlin propaganda" around the world.
  
• Respected journalist, Julia Ioffe claims that Russia Today is a Kremlin propaganda outlet featuring "fringe-dwelling experts" and "was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering."
  
• The Economist magazine classified RT's reporting as "weirdly constructed propaganda" and has provided a platform to conspiracy theorists.
  
• According to a variety of sources such as Der Spiegel and Reporters Without Borders, the channel presents pro-Kremlin propaganda.
  
• The Digital Journal called RT a "pro-Putin news outlet" and its advertising campaign as "open propaganda war."
  
• Luke Harding for The Guardian described the network as "unashamedly pro-Putin " and part of the Kremlin's attempt to create a "post-Soviet global propaganda empire."
  
• The New Republic characterized Russia Today as, "virulent anti-Americanism, worshipful portrayal of Russian leaders, and comical production values," that "can't help but revive the pettiness that was a distinctive feature of Soviet-era propaganda."
  

Edited May 10, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

Posted like a true Gatekeeper. The content can be sourced elsewhere too, so nice try on a single video source and "badge" and then going all "cold war" on it, extremely funny. You can spin the same shit the other way for most media channels for the west, and they dont all focus on the issue, yet those that do are demons!

Nothing of what you just posted in the points has anything to do with the issue within the video and concerns (which can be found elsewhere as I have said), isn't that funny thing, so thanks and everything. "Move along nothing to see here" ... its not going away, and you will be the last to realise .. tick tock tick.

Edited May 11, 2012 by mrcash2009

[PELHAM 10]

If you posted credible sources I would have nothing to say. Not sure how you can say the same thing for western media channels, they rank Russia 140th out of 178 on the Press Freedom Index you know.....Press Freedom Index

RT which is state controlled and is linked to the Russian secret services is the leading opponent of any measures to strengthen cyber security in the West, not hard to see why when you read this: China and Russia are using cyber espionage to steal U.S. trade and technology secrets.- Reuters.

CISPA exists because of reports like the above, if Russia didn't steal there wouldn't be a CISPA and we wouldn't be having this debate.

Edited May 11, 2012 by PELHAM

[mrcash2009 0]

If you posted credible sources I would have nothing to say.

"Credible sources" would be everything pertaining to this all being totally fine no doubt in your world *please refer to pelhams posts*, and sources of which are based on your personal perspective view of what is credible, so its groundhog day each and everytime Mr Gatekeeper. But flounder around for the sake of it if you must.

Posting this for "reference of views of concern in relation to this threads topic only"

and in no way is this video posting directed toward Pelham

As you can see I wasnt posting it for you to say anything, it was going to be a predictable outcome either way, already knew your view on that channel from a few pages back.

Much thanks, mr compartmentalised, east/west cold war mindset. This is about online, which is global, so spending your precious time sourcing your debunk does not at any stage alter the course of the point within it, so your views of that particular station are just your views, and the points and concerns still exists whether or not you see it that way, you can source the same elsewhere as I have already said. Meanwhile this still moves forward none the less.

Edited May 11, 2012 by mrcash2009